If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It’s interesting sometimes to read about the last days of past civilizations. It’s hard not to notice during these readings that those last days were filled with completely irrational ideas and behaviors that could not be explained in any way outside of a mass collapse of reason.

In entirely unrelated news, there’s a new proposal to mandate coverage for Gay Infertility. The problem is that Gay Infertility is just biology. Two men and two women are not infertile. They’re just not capable of impregnating each other. This isn’t a medical problem. It’s a mental problem.

Infertility is meant to cover natural couples who would be capable of conceiving a child if not for medical problems. Gay rights activists will predictably argue that couples in which one partner has deeper medical problems may also be covered, but that is only as part of a larger set of natural couples. Unnatural couples cannot ever have children without medical intervention. They’re not infertile. They’re biologically incompatible.

But now that we’ve decided that gay marriage is a real thing, biology be damned. Gay infertility must also be a real thing. And you must also pay for it.

Should health insurers be legally required to offer infertility treatment for gay couples? Yes, according to a bill (AB 460) filed in the California legislature by assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco). In fact, refusing to do so should be a crime.

Current California law requires group health plans to offer coverage for infertility treatments with the exception of in vitro fertilization (IVF). If such coverage is purchased, benefits must be paid whenever “a demonstrated condition recognized by a licensed physician and surgeon as a cause for infertility” has been diagnosed—or upon “the inability to conceive a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to a live birth after a year of regular sexual relations without contraception.” Thus, under current law, diagnosis of a physical reason for the inability to conceive or sire a child is not required. It is enough that a couple tried to get pregnant for a year and failed.

According to the fact sheet supporting AB 460, the trouble is that some insurance companies “are not complying with current law that prohibits discrimination” based on sexual orientation. Instead, they are denying infertility treatment benefits “based on [the policy holder’s] not having an opposite sex married partner in which to have one year of regular sexual relations without conception.” AB 460 would amend the law to add the following language:

Once we’ve determined that 70-year-olds and gay men are equally entitled to infertility treatments, not to mention people paralyzed from the waist down and 3-year-olds… it’s time to extend the civil right of a medical treatment meant to help biologically compatible couples to people trying to impregnate sheep and coffee tables.

If we’re going to treat biology like a bad joke, why stop at the human species line? Why stop at biology at all.

Sometimes, when a man and a woman are together, they can't have kids. It's just something in one of their biology preventing it.

Nonetheless, I don't support helping gays have kids through coverage. In fact, I don't support helping anybody have kids through coverage. We have people who need surgery for cancer, need anti-biotics, need preventive drugs to keep them well (and in some cases alive), and people are having trouble getting all of that. Fertility along with breast implants should be the last thing on the list to worry about. It's just not a necessity.

Also worth mentioning is that fertility drugs often produce a surplus of embryos, all of which cannot be implanted into the woman or it would kill her. I don't even like fertility treatments for that reason.

Sometimes, when a man and a woman are together, they can't have kids. It's just something in one of their biology preventing it.

Nonetheless, I don't support helping gays have kids through coverage. In fact, I don't support helping anybody have kids through coverage. We have people who need surgery for cancer, need anti-biotics, need preventive drugs to keep them well (and in some cases alive), and people are having trouble getting all of that. Fertility along with breast implants should be the last thing on the list to worry about. It's just not a necessity.

Also worth mentioning is that fertility drugs often produce a surplus of embryos, all of which cannot be implanted into the woman or it would kill her. I don't even like fertility treatments for that reason.

They can have all the infertility treatments it's still not going to change the fact that 2 men or 2 women cannot impregnate each other. But this piece of news is lost on the left.

Also worth mentioning is that fertility drugs often produce a surplus of embryos, all of which cannot be implanted into the woman or it would kill her. I don't even like fertility treatments for that reason.

And how exactly does this apply to two gay males that want to collect compensation for their inability to concieve?

Sometimes, when a man and a woman are together, they can't have kids. It's just something in one of their biology preventing it.

Nonetheless, I don't support helping gays have kids through coverage. In fact, I don't support helping anybody have kids through coverage. We have people who need surgery for cancer, need anti-biotics, need preventive drugs to keep them well (and in some cases alive), and people are having trouble getting all of that. Fertility along with breast implants should be the last thing on the list to worry about. It's just not a necessity.

I used to date a guy who was adopted at around age 8 by people who beat the crap out of him daily. The adoptive mom was infertile. He used to say that sometimes, infertility is God's way of making sure people don't have kids.

I think that if there is no coverage for anyone to have fertility treatments, at least it's fair and gay couples can't sue for discrimination.

The issue is that the insurance company says it will only pay if the couple tries for a year without conception.

This is going to end up in court because there are so many possible scenarios that the insurance company can only be considered to make these decisions in an arbitrary basis.

Let's say that you have a woman who had to have a hysterectomy. Her eggs and husband's sperm need to be united and implanted in a surrogate. Does the insurance company toss a coin? What if the woman never had a uterus or has some other unfixable medical barrier?

It's going to come down to the insurance company saying, 'This is only available to married heterosexual couples." and that will run afoul of all kinds of nondiscrimination laws.

The issue is that the insurance company says it will only pay if the couple tries for a year without conception.

This is going to end up in court because there are so many possible scenarios that the insurance company can only be considered to make these decisions in an arbitrary basis.

Let's say that you have a woman who had to have a hysterectomy. Her eggs and husband's sperm need to be united and implanted in a surrogate. Does the insurance company toss a coin? What if the woman never had a uterus or has some other unfixable medical barrier?

It's going to come down to the insurance company saying, 'This is only available to married heterosexual couples." and that will run afoul of all kinds of nondiscrimination laws.

Seriously...

How does the above have anything to do with two lesbians getting undeserved insurance compensation for something they can never hope to achieve?

The whole point of the bill is to punish insurance companies for not providing this compensation to gay couples.